Audirvana Studio

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, Daren F said:

Imagine Qobuz and Roon/Audirvana merged to form one service. One subscription.

 

Competition is a good thing. It keeps all three of these companies innovating. 

[Daren F]

8 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Competition is a good thing. It keeps all three of these companies innovating. 

 

That true. I just wish the Qobuz was a little innovative and would launch a Connect feature or fix their Chromecast implementation.

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 minutes ago, Daren F said:

 

That true. I just wish the Qobuz was a little innovative and would launch a Connect feature or fix their Chromecast implementation.

I agree 100%

[all300b]

Too bad - literally just splurged for HQ player two weeks ago. Though unlikely to have added yet another subscription service to my life. Would assume that the new Audirvana - like the old - cannot link its audio output to HQ player within the same computer?

 

 

[Saffuria]

3 minutes ago, all300b said:

Would assume that the new Audirvana - like the old - cannot link its audio output to HQ player within the same computer?

And why would you do that? Just out of curiosity.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Daren F said:

 

That true. I just wish the Qobuz was a little innovative and would launch a Connect feature or fix their Chromecast implementation.

 

I'm sure they are "a little innovative," but resources and time dictate how much they can accomplish in a given time frame.

 

Bringing this back around to Audirvana, I would still use it even if Qobuz had these features, due to the sound quality. 🙂

[Daren F]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I'm sure they are "a little innovative," but resources and time dictate how much they can accomplish in a given time frame.

 

Bringing this back around to Audirvana, I would still use it even if Qobuz had these features, due to the sound quality. 🙂

 

While just about every other streaming service has managed to figure it out Qobuz lags behind. If they don't have the resources in house, they should consider contracting it out.

 

I find that I get the best sound quality using the Chromecast built in to my Primare NP5 streamer. Cloud\streamer\DAC with no third party apps in between. It's also the most convenient for library management. Unfortunately, the Qobuz CCA implementation is so bad it's unusable.

 

 

[LarryMagoo]

Has anyone here compared Qobuz to their own rips?   FWIW, I find Qobuz seems to boost the bottom end a little compared to my own rips....Anyone? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, LarryMagoo said:

Has anyone here compared Qobuz to their own rips?   FWIW, I find Qobuz seems to boost the bottom end a little compared to my own rips....Anyone? 

I've compared them and the ones I compared were 100% bit for bit identical. I also couldn't hear a difference. 

[rruffin]

20 minutes ago, LarryMagoo said:

Has anyone here compared Qobuz to their own rips?   FWIW, I find Qobuz seems to boost the bottom end a little compared to my own rips....Anyone? 

I frequently use Qobuz to find new music and then purchase the disc in order to get better sound quality. I have found the difference to be subtle -  at the high end, tighter bottom and something a little more spacious in the sound stage. All subtle, but noticeable enough (on some recordings more than others) that I pay the extra money. (I also prefer the subtle sound improvement of foreign disc pressings - British, German and Japanese...)

[all300b]

Would assume that the new Audirvana - like the old - cannot link its audio output to HQ player within the same computer?

|  And why would you do that? Just out of curiosity.

 

Well..  pre-Audirvana studio I was having fun deciding among the many filters, algorithms, and EQ options of HQ player using two diametrically different headphones (Senn 650 and HiFiman 560). But the user interface of HQ player and I remained a poor match even after putting effort into the relationship - both the iPad remote and client remain opaque to me in real-world use. So I rented Roon as a trial but thought it would be nice to marry the interface of Audirvana 3.5, which I previously paid for, with HQ player. Was able to figure out how to route Spotify and internet streaming to HQ player but not Audirvana. Was hoping the new release of Audirvana would include an HQ player output just so I can use the SQ settings I like and the software I purchased, but see that they have gone in an entirely new direction.

 

[LarryMagoo]

2 hours ago, rruffin said:

I frequently use Qobuz to find new music and then purchase the disc in order to get better sound quality. I have found the difference to be subtle -  at the high end, tighter bottom and something a little more spacious in the sound stage. All subtle, but noticeable enough (on some recordings more than others) that I pay the extra money. (I also prefer the subtle sound improvement of foreign disc pressings - British, German and Japanese...)

I agree with you.   I use Qobuz mostly to find out if I would enjoy the purchase.   It seems That my rips exhibit similar qualities as you describe.  I don't quite understand where the Qobuz version plays from before you actually "add" it to your library.  Anyway, because I think I hear boosted bass from the Qobuz versions, it seems my rips are more accurate.   I would like to see Chris's "Bit for Bit" comparo so I could what he was writing about above.   His Bit for Bit identical infers that they have to sound the same, but I still would like to know where the file plays from.   I just had a thought...I wonder what actually happens when/if you terminate your Qobuz membership and all your "additions" vanish.   Hopefully your own duplicate versions would still be left intact...One difference for me is Qobuz is is usually FLAC and I rip/import in WAV.

[SteveS1]

Unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be anything much here for people who don't stream.  My AV is used to play local files, mainly vinyl rips, I have no interest in streaming but like the ability of AV to use my Dirac plug in.  I assume 3.5 will just die eventually if not supported by a future OSX.  Great shame.

[Whya Duck]

33 minutes ago, SteveS1 said:

Unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be anything much here for people who don't stream.

I agree that the Audirvana Studio experience is intended to merge the local library and streaming content into a single collection. That’s a huge benefit to streamers with local content, but less appealing to local-only or streaming-only users. 
 

It would be wise for Audirvana to consider offering local-only or streaming-only versions of Audirvana Studio at a discounted price. 
 

While the Facebook reveal described commitment to supporting version 3.5, I imagine that “support” will be limited to OS release compatibility for

the next 2-3 years. 

 

It’s difficult to continue to support 2 products, with a separate codebase, for the long term. 

[lucretius]

On 5/9/2021 at 7:52 PM, Jud said:

Something I'm quite interested in is the capability of playing radio stations. Yes, I have satellite radio with a large number of channels, but each concentrates on a relatively narrow genre and so is not so great for discovering interesting new/unknown music outside that narrow genre.

 

I miss radio stations where I used to live that were excellent for this sort of thing (or just enjoying listening to music), such as XPN, the University of Pennsylvania station. And depending on the sound quality, it might remove the need for an FM tuner.

 

Can't you already get internet radio stations through a free app?  E.g. Tune-In, Audials, etc.

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Can't you already get internet radio stations through a free app?  E.g. Tune-In, Audials, etc.

You can get them, but routing the audio through one's main audio system can be difficult. 

[lucretius]

I got Audirvana for Windows when it first came out, then later, 3.5.  I didn’t expect much of it at the time but thought it would be a good idea to support it to encourage development (for Windows).  I never really used it much as I have better options.  Nonetheless, I expected the software to mature somewhat.  But in my view and to my disappointment, this never really happened.  Goodbye Audirvana!  YMMV.

[LarryMagoo]

10 minutes ago, lucretius said:

I got Audirvana for Windows when it first came out, then later, 3.5.  I didn’t expect much of it at the time but thought it would be a good idea to support it to encourage development (for Windows).  I never really used it much as I have better options.  Nonetheless, I expected the software to mature somewhat.  But in my view and to my disappointment, this never really happened.  Goodbye Audirvana!  YMMV.

 

 

Try Roon.....you'll never look back!!   Audirvana could not carry Roon's jock strap!!!

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, LarryMagoo said:

 

 

Try Roon.....you'll never look back!!   Audirvana could not carry Roon's jock strap!!!

I do use Roon and love it - I have a lifetime subcription.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Can't you already get internet radio stations through a free app?  E.g. Tune-In, Audials, etc.

 

Yes, through Shairport that comes installed on the microRendu in my case.  But the sound quality isn't as good as Audirvana's IMHO.

[Jud]

6 hours ago, LarryMagoo said:

 

 

Try Roon.....you'll never look back!!   Audirvana could not carry Roon's jock strap!!!

 

Opinions differ.  :-)

[AudioDoctor]

On 5/9/2021 at 5:13 PM, Jud said:

Roon lifetime $500.

 

Add $200 to that Jud.

[AudioDoctor]

A lifetime license for Roon costs $700 bucks now, and if you add HQPlayer on top of that it's another $260. With Tax, you're at or over $1000 USD. Thats the price you pay for software if you don't want a subscription. Developers have to eat too, and I think these prices are lower than they could be.

 

$70 a year is an absolute bargain. It's $5.83 a month.

[idesign]

In light of the Audirvana Studio announcement, I decided objectively reevaluate Roon (v.1.8.790) after several years of not using it. There is a very apparent difference in the sound and I perceive to Audirvana (v3.5.44) to be darker and more faithful to the recording whereas Roon seems to be brighter and have a digital glare. I have not been very active on Audiophile Style and I am wondering if my impressions of Roon 1.8 are consistent with other members? Lastly, several years ago there were claims by other Chord DAVE+Blu Mk II owners that using Roon+HQ Player with the upsampling options disabled improved the sound quality of Roon-- can anyone confirm the merits of those claims?  

 

Audirvana Studio may be in my future -if- Damien can maintain or further improve the current sound quality over v3.5. 

[AudioDoctor]

5 minutes ago, idesign said:

In light of the Audirvana Studio announcement, I decided objectively reevaluate Roon (v.1.8.790) after several years of not using it. There is a very apparent difference in the sound and I perceive to Audirvana (v3.5.44) to be darker and more faithful to the recording whereas Roon seems to be brighter and have a digital glare. I have not been very active on Audiophile Style and I am wondering if my impressions of Roon 1.8 are consistent with other members? Lastly, several years ago there were claims by Chord DAVE+Blu Mk II owners that using Roon+HQ Player with the upsampling options disabled improved the sound quality of Roon-- can anyone confirm the merits of those claims?  

 

Audirvana Studio may be in my future -if- Damien can maintain or further improve the current sound quality over v3.5. 

 

I do not own a Chord DAVE or a Blu Mk II, but I do use HQPlayer with Roon, and I upsample, and I find that HQPlayer substantially increases the sound quality to the point I can't even listen to Roon by itself anymore.